It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Searched and detained without cause, how would you feel?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by midnightbrigade
 



Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Sorry it took so long for me to respond. Occasionally, I do have to work on the night shift

I’m in exactly the same boat on that one.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
"Illegal searches and seizures except in airports”

But that is exactly it... Its not an “Illegal” search and seizure, because your agreeing to comply with the “conditions of carriage” when you purchase the ticket. The same as if you told a police officer it is OK to search your vehicle.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
2, when did the rights of a corporation, concerned about money or public image become more important than the right of an individual?

I still don’t get how you think this is any different then any other rule that any business puts on you to limit your freedoms when in their place of business.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
My question to you is why do you say I have to choose to use a different method when my rights are guaranteed?

Because they’re not guaranteed on someone else’s private property, in their business, or when traveling in their equipment as long as they are not discriminatory or against the law. That is why businesses can restrict entry to only those who they employ or choose to allow, or how they can enforce dress codes, etc. Same thing here, you can refuse the search, but they can then deny you entry onto the concourse and thereby the aircraft.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
You say I could choose, I say I shouldn't have to. I shouldn't have to take a train just to avoid my rights being infringed. During the civil rights movement, blacks could have chosen to just not ride the bus, or sit in black only restaurants.

Now that is discrimination, and that is a different story. If you go back to what I said earlier, it would be unconstitutional for them to only search people with brown hair, or of Middle Eastern descent. Therefore, they have to search everyone equally for it to be legal.

I bet you did not know this…
When I worked out there, if I went up into the terminal to have lunch or buy a newspaper, I had to submit to the search along with everyone else coming into the concourse. Flight Crews, Mechanics, PSA’s, Building Maintenance, Ramp Crew, even the FAA guys have to submit to a search when coming in through the terminal. The TSA guys running the check point would have to go through their own detectors and be searched when they came on shift, and when they came back from lunch break. Its just the rules of the road so that its equal for everyone, even if you had a security clearance.



Originally posted by midnightbrigade
The problem with this is bigger than 1 airplanes safety. The problem is that once a right is pushed, then it gets stepped on, and it's a very short trip before it's trampled on. Once it gets started, and people accept it, not long after, that right is gone. And if one right can be on paper, unaltered, but completely disregarded, then all of them can be.

I think that you are confusing that the constitution is meant to protect your rights from the Government, not from another private individual. When you start telling someone what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home or business, you are also eroding the same freedoms you are talking about. As long as they are not breaking the law, or discriminating, who are you (or me for that matter) to tell them that they CANNOT search you before entry, when its fully disclosed to you in advance that if you enter here you submit to a search?




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
America is definitely not what it looks like when i was a kid.
If those things happen in my country, there will be a riot for sure !

I really hope those american cops will calm down and stop running after arrest records. probably some paranoia-indicting drung in the doughnuts



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


1, Remember, these cats are civil servants, not police officers. Also, police officers can't search your car without your consent OR probable cause. Me walking into an airport does not give anyone probable cause to profile me as a terrorist and search me.

2. Not sure what "other rules" there are that business employ that violate your rights. Please explain.

3. I believe that laws are inherrant on any private or public property no matter who owns said property. If I'm in someone else's car and they say it is not ok for me to wear a seatbelt, I still get a ticket and punished when we get stopped. He can't make up a rule to super cede a law just because we are in his property.

4. What's being done IS discrimination. It's discriminating against people who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy.


5. I did know that


6. The Constitution is designed to protect your rights from everyone. Government, corporation or individual. Two points on this one: A private individual has no right to infringe on my right to life. When that's broken, we call it murder.

Secondly, "When you start telling someone what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home or business, you are also eroding the same freedoms you are talking about." You mean like Homeland Security mandating these workers in the business?
Or forcing these companies to allow Federal Sky Marshall's on THEIR private property planes?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
I don't care what "terms and conditions" they are trying to get you to buy in to, NO ONE, not a company, not a CEO, not a President has the right to supersede the Constitution without a vote to change the Constitution.

They can tell you all they want to that you can't get on their plane unless you submit to searches, but until they petition, Congress votes, and the fourth amendment is changed, they CAN NOT legally stop you. If they do, they are opened to a civil suit.

If you really believe that anybody has the ability to take away your rights, just because they have a sign up that says by doing x you agree to surrender y then I pity you. I'm not making these comments to inflame you but you must understand that these are your rights man. Don't buy in to the crap that someone can take it away just because you want to use a service.


The point you are missing here is your understanding of "Rights."

Your Rights are a protection from action by the government, not individuals or businesses. The 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to States as well, so States and subdivisions of them (i.e., counties and cities) are bound by them too.

An individual or business CAN limit who they do business with and under what terms, except for limited situations.

If they are engaged in "Commerce" (and today, EVERYTHING is commerce according to the Courts), they can not discriminate against anyone in a "protected class." Protected classes were originally defined by race, color or religion.

Today they include women, nationality and age. THAT's why you have people screaming for GAY rights, or PET rights or ANIMAL rights.

In addition, you need to distinguish between rights and privileges.

You have the right to remain silent, own a gun (thank God that's been settled), or be left alone.

Driving is a privilege. Getting a break on insurance or taxes for marriage is a privilege.

Rights affect your interaction with the Government. They are found in the Constitution as a limit on the power of government.

Privileges are benefits extended to people who meet or agree to certain conditions (not speeding, going the right way on the road, having children and raising families).

The general rule is that individuals and businesses do not owe you anything but to be treated respectfully in return for yours, and that's just society, not government extending that.

You have a right to freedom of speech, but ATS can punish and ban you from here. You agreed to certain Ts & Cs and rules of courtesy when you joined. If you don't like the terms, you can stay out. It's not discrimination, it's business!

Oh, by the way,
deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I will deny ignorance, by asking you to actually read all my posts. I believe I've already refuted every point you tried to make. I understand the difference between a right and a privilege, but if you are going to tell me that the Constitution has nothing to do with interaction between individuals and business you need to reread the Constitution. Every law we have must be constitutional, and if its not, that law gets struck down. The Constitution is the end all of our laws. Every law on how to govern business has to be approved in light of the Constitution.

If business don't have any regulation from the Constitution, then why is it an 18 year old, who is a legal adult can't go in to a bar and drink? For that matter, why was prohibition an amendment to the Constitution? That amendment is what made it illegal for business to cater to their customers desire for alcohol.

I know what you were trying to do, but get your facts straight first.

Ignorance denied
mb



[edit on 29-1-2009 by midnightbrigade]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The police do search and detain without cause and you are asking how we would feel if this occurred.They search cars at DWI stops.While you are stopped they use their flashlight to look inside the car.If you go through the wrong neighborhood you may be stopped and searched.They will even make up a reason.With me it was claimed I did not come to a complete stop.As if someone would approach an intersection where a police car is and just drive thorugh.I don't do that when there is not a policeman around.Cops will lie and lie often.They get around the constitution by lying and by keeping you stopped and questioning you until you agree to a search.From now on I am going to ask them to arrest me or let me go.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I want to thank all of you for your posts. Though I don't like it much, it does make sense. What made me even do this post is I watched the movie Cry Freedom again not long ago. I remember when that movie came out I had several spirited discussions on how terrible it was that SA blacks had to have "papers" and ID in order to move about in the country. At that time things were very different and the thought of needing id to move about freely was very foreign.

It would surely seem that 9/11 changed our nation and the way we live forever. Either the "terrorists" or whoever was behind that day did accomplish their ends. We do now live in a fear based society, what a change.

I personally am able to have a rational discussion with Law Enforcement and do appreciate what they do, when they do it right. Between the threat of attack and the rising crime rate, I only see this getting worse. I often wonder if things are this radically different in my lifetime, I am 51, how different will this nation be when my own children are grown.

I am reminded of that famous quote of Benjamin Franklin:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I suppose a 200 year old quote has little meaning in today's world. red



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ethann
 


I have to agree with you that bad cops pull that sort of crap all the time. It makes things so much harder for people to respect them and their authority when some behave in this way.

I also think that as one of the posts said earlier, the governments need cash and traffic tickets and sir charges given as part of sentence agreements for even minor misdemeanors add to the coffers.

Welcome to the new America.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
And how would you feel in this case?
The Supreme Court says a man who was wrongly convicted and spent 24 years in prison may not sue the former Los Angeles district attorney and his chief deputy for violating his civil rights

Wrongfully convicted, man can’t sue prosecutor



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
When I was going to the U of Minnesota, I stopped in to a local mom and pop store to get some milk and stuff, and as I came out 3 of Minnepolis' finest had their guns drawn, on me, and were telling me to drop the milk. I did. I didn't say a word because frankly I was trying not to wet my pants in front of the cops. Needless to say I'm thinking "false arrest....$ $ $ $ $" because all I did was buy milk and stuff. They were all over me and I did not do a thing. Funny part is, the store had just been robbed, by a guy with long hair and reddish jacket, like mine and they were responding to the call. The store clerks never said a word to me. They were open for business as usual, chatting at the counter, and never told me to look out when I leave because the cops were coming. Thankfully the cops were cool about it after they asked the morons in the store if I was the suspect. My point is, a lot of the times we here stories about somebody minding their own business and getting their rights violated by the MAN, but we don't hear the whole story, or leave out parts to make the story prove a point.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Russi
 


It happens every day in every state, county and town in the nation. Those who cannot afford bail are often incarcerated for months and months until the legal system works it way to a completion. Yet there is no recourse for lost wages or false imprisonment. Welcome to the US justice system.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by redhead57
 


Sounds to me like somebody needs to go talk to the nearest "big city" attorney.

You've got a valid lawsuit against all of the officers, their supervisors and the city itself... However, you're probably going to have to move after the lawsuit...

I wouldn't put up with it though.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The real problem is that as with everything it get abused ....
What bothers me is that everything has just become a business ..(Especially the justice system and the Government) ........The only difference is ..no one can hold either one of them accountable for their actions if they abuse their power ..and so they abuse it even more ....
Also 911 has made everyone paranoid (especially the police) ....this has caused some serious problems for us and them .......

Even when something happens serious that was way beyond just a screw up ..like the disabled person in our area who called 911 for an emergency aid call he was in bed having a seizure he himself called for help etc ...they came into his house and into his room and tazed the living crap out of him .

Even with lawyers on his side you know and I know it will get swept under the rug and a deal made quickly just to get it over with ...When it should at least be something for the cops to take notice of and see how being overly paranoid is certainly not something cops should be doing ..they need to balance out their feelings to make sure no innocents gets hurt in their paranoia state of mind ...

This really did happen here is the story ..completely uncalled for .
www.camaroz28.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
...if you are going to tell me that the Constitution has nothing to do with interaction between individuals and business you need to reread the Constitution.

It only applies to those "engaged in commerce" (through the "Commerce Clause"), and only to the extent they violate the rights of a "protected class" through unlawful discrimination. Pure and simple.

I can tell you not to "bear arms" in my house, not to say words I don't want my children to hear, or not to bring magazines or pictures, either. And in my store or office as well. I can search your ass, too.

That's 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and you've got none in a private home or business.


Every law we have must be constitutional, and if its not, that law gets struck down. The Constitution is the end all of our laws. Every law on how to govern business has to be approved in light of the Constitution.

Businesses and individuals do not make laws. Governments do.


If business don't have any regulation from the Constitution, then why is it an 18 year old, who is a legal adult can't go in to a bar and drink? For that matter, why was prohibition an amendment to the Constitution?

States make alcohol-related laws. They function under the "parens patriae" doctrine, or under their police power.

Some states say you can't buy alcohol on Sunday, election day, or after 9:00 p.m. . Some don't give a rat's ass what you do with ETOH.

That is called "Federalism." It is part of the Constitution that says that all powers not denied to the states are reserved to them. Except for that stupid "Commerce Clause" crap, states are free to make up their own rules for their own people. That's why gays can gamble or get married in some states, but not others. That's why I go to Missouri to get fireworks instead of California. It's why I hunt in Texas but not New Jersey.

Ever wonder why people go to New Orleans to party, or Las Vegas? They've got better laws! (Federalism at work.)


That amendment is what made it illegal for business to cater to their customers desire for alcohol.

The 16th Amendment ("prohibition") made it unlawful to own, consume or distill ETOH anywhere, even New Orleans (I don't think they'd invented Las Vegas yet). States had no choice, because the Feds took that away from them. (Federalism, again!)

The 23rd Amendment did away with the 16th. States were free to do what they wanted again.( Yay, Federalism!)


I know what you were trying to do, but get your facts straight first.


Sadly, you don't. No, you really do not.
Your questions or observations, however blurry, do not disprove or even raise a doubt about my "facts." (Although I really don't know which you refer to since you seem to agree here, disagree there, misunderstand all over.)

deny ignorance (please)

jw



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Nothing has changed. It was worse in the 1970's when I was college age. You were more, not less likely back then to be harassed. It is a myth that it is worse now. The Police were in everyone's business back then far more than they are now.

While attending school in the early 70's it was common to be pulled over and searched for any reason. I'd guess I went through this in the L.A. area at least once a month in those days. I was never arrested and never did anything to give them a reason, but it was just the way it was for young people with long hair.

If you live in a neighborhood where there is a lot of partying and drugs around, which also seems to plague poor neighborhoods, they may be doing you a favor. It would help keep the Gangs out and your children safer.

I ask because you gave the example of a bunch of people sitting outside drinking. Drunk people usually cause the Police to check them out with their behavior and then they always lie about it afterward. I know as I've seen it many times. I've seen people scream at Cops for no reason and harass them, then they claim the Cop had no reason to check them


Walk a mile in the Cops shoes in your mind and then sit down with them and ask them. You might be surprised how accommodating they would be. Go to a City Council meeting and politely ask about it and discuss it. For the system to work, you have to be a willing participant. You might even get them to rethink their methods.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


"It only applies to those "engaged in commerce" (through the "Commerce Clause"), and only to the extent they violate the rights of a "protected class" through unlawful discrimination. Pure and simple.

I can tell you not to "bear arms" in my house, not to say words I don't want my children to hear, or not to bring magazines or pictures, either. And in my store or office as well. I can search your ass, too.

That's 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and you've got none in a private home or business. "

Wrong sir. According to Federal judges in two separate cases, one was against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers patdown of fans before entering their BUSINESS in Florida. They found that was illegal.

In the other case from Indianapolis the judge was quoted as "In order to justify the "special needs" exception, however, the risk to public safety must be "substantial and real." ....There must also be a "concrete danger" demanding departure from the Fourth Amendement's main rule," such that the hazard or threat is "real and not simply hypothetical," ...A "special need" cannot be demonstrated by the gravity of the threat" alone or the "severe and intractable nature of the problem"

So you see, that covers both airports AND business, and I never said a damned thing about how you conduct yourself at your home. Argue the facts, not what extraneous crap you want to throw in to "prove" your case.

"Businesses and individuals do not make laws. Governments do."

Well, you got that half right. Individuals elect representatives, who themselves are individuals, and they create laws. They just happen to fall under the auspice of "government". Doesn't mean they aren't part of the same system that they help to maintain. What part of "Of the people, by the people, for the people" don't you understand?

"The 16th Amendment ("prohibition") made it unlawful to own, consume or distill ETOH anywhere, even New Orleans (I don't think they'd invented Las Vegas yet). States had no choice, because the Feds took that away from them. (Federalism, again!)"

First, don't try to give me a lesson on how the states and Federal rights are broken down. So far, you haven't been able to school me on a single thing about the Constitution, so it's the height of arrogance to presume you need to run a class on me. Next, Using the Constitution, the government was able to dictate to business and in homes that they couldn't have alcohol. So, that proves that the Constitution can be used to limit what business can do. So it would hold if it can impede the sale of a product, then it can also be invoked to impede what a business can do to a patron. Your argument is dead.

"Sadly, you don't. No, you really do not."

I think in this, you got it right. I guess I didn't see what your point was. I was under the impression that your argument was valid and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm done with that now.

Seeing that I have a whole lot more to say to you but that I have no desire to violate ATS T&C about civility I will end all posting to you. As my dad always used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".

Your ignorance denied, then accepted, and moved on from
Not worth my time and effort.

mb



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Wrong sir. According to Federal judges in two separate cases, one was against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers patdown of fans before entering their BUSINESS in Florida. They found that was illegal.

While you are partially correct here, you are also partially wrong.
The reason being, that at the time the security officers at Tampa stadium were doing “physical pat downs”, as in placing their hands on people. That is different then the security checkpoints at airports, where there is no physical contact with your person. For that matter to enter Tampa's Courthouse you also have to pass through a checkpoint which is exactly the same as the ones at the airport. When you go through an airport or even the courthouse security area, they use electronic means to detect what you are carrying, they do not “pat you down”. Pat downs are reserved for law enforcement officers in the course of their duty, they do not extend into the private sector as they cross into the laws of the Terry Stop. For example, to this day, if you enter a Florida Theme Park such as Disney, you have to submit to a physical search of your belongings, yet they cannot lay a hand on your person.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
So you see, that covers both airports AND business, and I never said a damned thing about how you conduct yourself at your home. Argue the facts, not what extraneous crap you want to throw in to "prove" your case.

Unfortunately, that is how laws work, they are not black and white, and often are convoluted messes with exceptions, loopholes, and very specific legalese.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Well, you got that half right. Individuals elect representatives, who themselves are individuals, and they create laws. They just happen to fall under the auspice of "government". Doesn't mean they aren't part of the same system that they help to maintain. What part of "Of the people, by the people, for the people" don't you understand?

That is the way things are supposed to work in an ideal situation, but as we have seen we do not live under an ideal situation any longer. Representatives don't listen to the people that elect them, as was clearly show with the bank bail-out, they are more inclined to listen to the fat wallets of lobbyists.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Next, Using the Constitution, the government was able to dictate to business and in homes that they couldn't have alcohol. So, that proves that the Constitution can be used to limit what business can do.

Businesses can do anything that a private individual can do as long as it does not violate any standing federal or state laws. Obviously the constitution does not give everyone the ability to do anything they please, as there are laws to limit this. Those laws can be both state, and federal. As the Federalists began taking over the government, which really was what the Civil War was about, more power was taken from the states, and thus the people, and given over to the federal government.


Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Seeing that I have a whole lot more to say to you but that I have no desire to violate ATS T&C about civility I will end all posting to you. As my dad always used to say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".

I hate to see you do that, we have been having an interesting conversation in this thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Defcon, I totally agree that you and I have been having a good conversation. Differing points or not, you sir are going on my friends list. I enjoy great debate, and you have proven yourself intelligent,and eloquent in your posts. I was stating that I would not be saying anything more to jdub297. While he had interesting points, his condescension and abrasive posting turned me completely off from responding any more to him.

"While you are partially correct here, you are also partially wrong.
The reason being, that at the time the security officers at Tampa stadium were doing “physical pat downs”, as in placing their hands on people"

I will defer to your knowledge on the subject, as I'm sure being from Florida you have much better information than I could have gathered from the internet.

"That is different then the security checkpoints at airports, where there is no physical contact with your person"

My person, or my belonging are the same to me
I don't want people rooting around in my undies for no cause. Let me make sure I'm clear with my meaning. I'm totally ok with sending my bag or my body through a metal detector, but once they both pass, my issue is that no one should be rooting through it.

"Unfortunately, that is how laws work, they are not black and white, and often are convoluted messes with exceptions, loopholes, and very specific legalese."

Very true, but it's up to us as citizens to make sure that they still adhere to the Constitution. If we feel they don't then we need to take it to the courts to decide for certain.

"That is the way things are supposed to work in an ideal situation, but as we have seen we do not live under an ideal situation any longer. Representatives don't listen to the people that elect them, as was clearly show with the bank bail-out, they are more inclined to listen to the fat wallets of lobbyists."

That's a completely different subject all together
I only got an hour of work left, don't get me started on the bailout!


"Those laws can be both state, and federal. As the Federalists began taking over the government, which really was what the Civil War was about, more power was taken from the states, and thus the people, and given over to the federal government."

You're correct, my only point in using that example was to illustrate that the Constitution applies to business in more than just discrimination cases as was suggested by jdub

Hope that clears up a little bit about where I was coming from in that last post. Tired, wired, on edge, goin home



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join